...Wrong, by this logic it would mean that gold should be dead because no one uses gold as a currency, only as an investment, and the other use cases are anecdotal, most of the gold is keep hoarded as a safe haven to hedge against a collapsing fiat economy. In this sense, Bitcoin can reach trillion of dollars of marketcap by this usage alone. Of course, if it's used in everyday transactions, that's cool too.

Stop comparing Bitcoin to gold. Gold has thousands & thousands years of history on Bitcoin, that's some first-mover advantage. And gold supply is not randomly and artificially limited, as is the case with Bitcoin.A far better analogy (both in essence and timeframe) is BTCeanie BTCabies: deliberately limited supply, impractical to use as money, were hoarded because "will maek me milionair!!!"

Gold is manipulated and most people own paper that tells them they have gold not actual physical bars.Like it or not gold will always be compared to bitcoin because there are similar aspects.

>Gold is manipulated Unlike Bitcoin

>most people own paper gold, not actual physical barsNever suggested otherwise. What difference does that make?

>gold [& BTC have] similar aspects.Sure. So do dogs and pencil sharpeners, they're both things. My point's BTC & BTCeanie BTCabies have *more* in common than BTC & gold.

...Wrong, by this logic it would mean that gold should be dead because no one uses gold as a currency, only as an investment, and the other use cases are anecdotal, most of the gold is keep hoarded as a safe haven to hedge against a collapsing fiat economy. In this sense, Bitcoin can reach trillion of dollars of marketcap by this usage alone. Of course, if it's used in everyday transactions, that's cool too.

Stop comparing Bitcoin to gold. Gold has thousands & thousands years of history on Bitcoin, that's some first-mover advantage. And gold supply is not randomly and artificially limited, as is the case with Bitcoin.A far better analogy (both in essence and timeframe) is BTCeanie BTCabies: deliberately limited supply, impractical to use as money, were hoarded because "will maek me milionair!!!"

...Well, among other things, yes. Additionally, what I find weird is when people ask me how Bitcoin works exactly (in-depth) when they don't even understand how the monetary system that they're using works at all.

They dont need to understand how the existing monetary system works because they have inherited it and learnt throughout their growing years. ...

+1. I don't understand how my liver works either, just know that it does. And yet if Anon came up to me wanting to replace my legacy liver with a disruptive one he cooked up in his basement, which is to say a far superior liver, liver of the future, I'd want to figure out how it works before saying yes.

Sure. You could also open a payment channel and fund it with just enough coin for 1 cup of coffee. It would be a stupid thing to do, you would loose money vs. transacting on the blockchain & bloat BTC blockchain in the process, but yeah, technically you could.If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.

Doing so for 1 cup of coffee does not make sense indeed. LN is not efficient for such. However, you have no calculations to back up any exact numbers (e.g. at exactly what point is it inefficient/expensive). You're part of the 'complaining is better than contributing crowd'.

Quote

The rest of your comments are simply "no ur rong," and, as such, deserve no response. Responding only because it pains me to see you reduce yourself to this, Lauda, sniping like a hurt little girl. Stop acting like a hurt little girl, Lauda, it's unbecoming.

>you have no calculations to back up any exact numbersOf course I have no numbers, there's no Lightning. duh.

>Simiarily you think that "ur rite"Again, of course, not in the habit of saying stuff I think is wrong. I back my comments with logic and reasoning and stuff. You? Not so much. As I mentioned earlier, ad hominem != wrong or inappropriate.Saying this as an educator and a friend, Lauda, stop it with the petulant little girl comebacks, people will like you more Edit re. ad hominem: Avoid. Makes you sound like a kid who's desperately trying to sound smart.

Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.Which is pointless.

100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.

ThisWhoever says that does not understand LN (albeit it is better than those that say that LN is an altcoin)....

>100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.Sure. You could also open a payment channel and fund it with just enough coin for 1 cup of coffee. It would be a stupid thing to do, you would loose money vs. transacting on the blockchain & bloat BTC blockchain in the process, but yeah, technically you could.If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.

The rest of your comments are simply "no ur rong," and, as such, deserve no response. Responding only because it pains me to see you reduce yourself to this, Lauda, sniping like a hurt little girl. Stop acting like a hurt little girl, Lauda, it's unbecoming.

It's funny how no one really thinks that no people are doing that, and there is really just that much activity on this forum... it's good though that campaigns are starting to become a lot more strict on people enrolling in campaigns and track their activity from a while back to make sure it isn't a pretty shit account.

At least if people are doing that, then it's a lot harder to get away with it than just by posting "+1" and "to da moon!". Regardless, signatures still aren't worth wasting every single minute of your day on... it's a shame that probably a lot of people on here do end up doing that and become recluses to their families and loved ones. I see threads pop up every now and then having people explain "how bad" gambling is and all that, because you "waste a whole day" on a site and "lose money... when in all reality they are wasting a full day on here trying to get their activity up and post as much as possible for fractions of bitcoins, and also end up losing out on money they would have made if they just got a regular job and then put that money into bitcoins instead.

I know it sounds like I'm a hypocrite that I'm in a campaign too, but I know where to draw the line in not becoming too obsessed over post count and getting as much bitcoins as possible to "becomez'a millionerrz"... instead I just focus on my career and frequent the board to get my daily news for cryptocurrencies (which getting back to the point of the thread) is what I think these kids should do. Tell them to go get a STEM degree, whatever that may be, and then do what they love... don't force them into bitcoins by any means, that's just flat out annoying.

I can't even blame people for doing exactly what I described -- poverty is a bitch, and in some places account farming/sig ad spamming probably adds up to a decent part-time income. Doesn't mean the forum hasn't turned to shit -- it has. Hmm, start selling crack on your own stoop, suddenly the neighborhood ain't as tony as it once was.Not even useful to the better scammers, tho we got a new addition to the /gambling/ section, /investment-based games/

And here we are, unironically suggesting a kid should hang out on faucet sites. Why not put the kid out to beg? At least she'll be outside, interacting with IRL people, in [presumably] fresher air. Did anyone suggest camwhoring yet?

If you ever wondered why people are more receptive to leprosy than bitcoiners, now you know.

Eth scam unraveling. Goldman Sachs and a few unfortunate noobs who I warned this would happen left holding the bag.

FUD! ETH wales shakin' out them weak hands & secretly accumulating. Remember when BTC took a dive into the $3s after being up in the $7s? Yeah, some panic-sodl, but pros got all over that buying opportunity & stockpiled.They're x100 wealthier now. Those who sodl? In mental asylums, on suicide watch

Brothers and sisters, the time has come for each and every one of you to decideWhether you are gonna be the problem, or whether you are gonna be the solution.You must choose, brothers, you must choose.It takes 5 seconds, 5 seconds of decision.Five seconds to realize that it's time to move.It's time to get down with it.Brothers, it's time to testify and I want to know,Are you ready to testify?Are you ready?Hodl!!!!1

>Finding something problematic and saying that it is a fundamental flaw is fundamentally different.I'm telling you it's a fundamental flaw which you don't seem to find problematic.

>The Lightning Network does not involve third parties nor buying any kind of gift cards.Correct, though has little to do with what I said, that being "what amounts to buying gift cards."

Lightning network requires its users to create a payment channel, which must be fully funded for all future use. Just like a gift card.Meaning that if you are planning to use Lightning to buy coffee at Starbucks, you must lock away as much BTC as you're planning to use at Starbucks *for the lifetime of the channel*. Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.Which is pointless.

>does not involve third partiesTechnically no.Just like cashing out your BTC to some speedier coin, transacting in that [speedier coin], and, when you're done with your shopping, buying BTC with the remnants (change) doesn't technically involve third parties.Though some might suggest you're not technically using BTC, either.

Should I also blame the guy who finds a bug in beta software for "ruining it for everyone"? Because this is exactly what's going on -- Bitcoin, a great social experiment, is in beta (Core's current ver. is 0.12.0). We should *thank* people exposing obvious & fundamental flaws.

What flaw are we talking about? The network is operating nicely without any problems. Seems like being hyperbolic and imagining flaws seems to be your thing.

Hyperbolic?

You don't find it somewhat problematic that a system billed as A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System can't handle the transaction volume generated by a small suburban shopping mall?

You don't consider it a problem that "the next world currency" can't come up with a coherent scaling roadmap which doesn't involve third parties & what amounts to buying gift cards from people you plan to do business with (lightning network)?

You don't find it worrying that our Mechanical Turk is not controlled by "maths and sciences," per billing, but by a couple of midgets, who aren't particularly good at chess & can't even play nice together?

Hyperbolic?

Turns out our self-driving currency has more in common with Thelma & Louise than Mario Andretti, and it don't bother you?

If "there is never total consensus," then you will never "reach consensus." That's just the way life is. Especially when no one even agrees on what "consensus" means

You can blame the disruptors for this. Bitcoin was fine before the block size debate and nothing has changed since.

Blame? What's with the knee-jerk blaming?Should I also blame the guy who finds a bug in beta software for "ruining it for everyone"? Because this is exactly what's going on -- Bitcoin, a great social experiment, is in beta (Core's current ver. is 0.12.0). We should *thank* people exposing obvious & fundamental flaws.If these "disruptors" succeed in disrupting the disruptive technology that is our beetcoin, kudos to them Stop this Red vs. Blue silliness.